Article on Hanukkah

Article Concerning Hanukkah

The Soreg (Barrier ie Wall of Partition) reads

NO FOREIGNER IS TO GO BEYOND THE BALUSTRADE AND THE PLAZA OF THE TEMPLE ZONE WHOEVER IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW

John 10:22  And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

John 10:24  Then the Jews surrounded Him [Yahshua] and said to Him, How long do you keep us in suspense? If You are the Messiah, tell us plainly.

Adapted from – ‘A Study of the Origins of the Jewish Holiday Called Hanukkah’ – A 22 page document by Lori Johnson

“So, [Yahshua] was in the Court of the Gentiles, in the area known as the Porch of Solomon, the eastern entrance to the Temple, where only proselytes and ceremonially unclean Jews would have been allowed. It should be noted that proselytes were still considered Gentiles, even though they were Jewish converts, and they were not allowed full access to the Temple. Nowhere in Torah do we see a mention of a need to separate out the stranger from the home born. The soreg is an invention of man, based on (dare I say it?) racial discrimination. Let’s look at the subsequent verse:”

“So, [Yahshua] is in the Porch of Solomon, the entrance to the Court of the Gentiles, surrounded (some translations say “encircled”) by Jews who refused to believe He was who He said He was, in the presence of those who could not “enter in” to the activity and life of the Temple, upon pain of death. Somehow, this is not a picture of celebration to me. The Jews’ intention seems to be to keep [Yahshua] out of the Temple, functioning much like the physical soreg already in place. Is this the wall, this soreg, of which Rav Shaul spoke in his letter to the assembly at Ephesus?”

{Eph 2:12  That at that time ye (Gentiles v:11) were without [Messiah], being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without [Yah] in the world:}

Eph.2:13-18 But now in [Messiah Yahshua] you who formerly were far off (held outside the temple, in the Court of the Gentiles) have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one (both Jews and Gentiles) and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall (the soreg), by abolishing in His flesh the enmity (the hatred which would put someone who passed the soreg to death), which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances (Gr. dogma, used to refer to the “traditions of the elders”), so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man (the beginning of the restoration of Judah and Ephraim as foretold in Yehezqel/Ezekiel 37:16), thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body (the bride) to Yah through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity (the hatred between brothers). AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR (Yeshayahu/Isaiah 57:18-19); for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. (NASB)

“Yes, [Yahshua] was at the temple during the Feast of Dedication. Yes, He was in the Porch of Solomon, the entryway into the Court of the Gentiles, entering in by [the] East Gate as He will enter into the Millennial Temple when He comes again to sit and rule. Perhaps, it seems, He may have been there walking and teaching, as was his way. Yes, He told the Pharisees that they were not of His flock, because they would not believe His message.”

“But no, He was not there to celebrate the Feast of Dedication. The text does not support that. Why did He go [there] at that time? What was His purpose? I believe His purpose was to make plain to anyone who would listen that He was Messiah, our Good Shepherd, the one who will lead us home. That He is one (not numerically, as so many mistake, but in unity of mind and spirit) with the Father. That He has come to give us eternal life, and no one can pluck us from His hand. Is this a message the Gentiles needed to hear?”

“Our Father’s plan has always been to bring home the lost sheep of
the House of Israel, as well as the strangers who would join themselves to Israel in the covenant. This is not a message that the religious Jews wanted to hear. It burned their ears to hear it, and they even accused [Yahshua] of having a demon, or being mad. That He was so bold [as] to come into the court with this message during one of their celebrations, well, it was just too much for them. They sought to kill Him. And eventually they succeeded.”

“Hanukkah has always been, and will always be, a celebration based on a moment in history when the Jews overthrew the Gentiles because of a clash over faith and culture. Jews have been persecuted throughout history. But unfortunately, they also have been the perpetrators of persecution. Judah Maccabee was no shepherd to his people, as [Yahshua] is a shepherd to His, though many lifted up Judah Maccabee as a type of Messiah. The spirit which led that revolt only turned into civil war that eventually led to the destruction of the Temple.”

“The message behind Hanukkah is contrary to the message of [Yahshua], which is one of uniting all the people of Yahuweh, not creating class distinctions based on physical ancestry and custom. We should question whether we should participate in something that, in effect, is an acknowledgement – indeed, a celebration – of the wall of partition
between Jews and Gentiles.”

“Many of us understand that there are pagan roots to beloved customs of the Christian faith; it is also important for us to see those same roots in the traditions of Judaism, which [Yahshua] corrected over and again. We must consider carefully and with great study, as the Bereans before us, what parts of man’s traditions are acceptable to Yahuweh and which should be avoided. We also must be very careful to consider the implications of our following such traditions, and especially the impact they have on the generation coming behind us.”

“It is my hope that the reader will be prompted to further investigate any customs and practices they have picked up along the way, measure them against the rod of the Torah, to determine whether they truly are following Torah or whether they are being drawn into another of man’s many religions.”

Adapted from – ‘A Study of the Origins of the Jewish Holiday Called Hanukkah’ – By Lori Johnson – {[Parenthetical inclusions mine]}

Christmas is a Christian mix of Half lies, a quarter error, and truth – Hanukkah is a Jewish mix of about the same ratio. Yet here is another facet I had not considered – Rededicating the Temple necessarily included rededicating the Soreg (Barrier ie Wall of Partition).

Yah’s Esteem

Advertisements

Two Buses out of Town

Two Buses out of Town

For the Jews (generally) and the Messianic that teach the Jews still have a valid Sinai covenant (and with it a valid Gen.15 ‘Abrahamic’ covenant); some key factors have to be either ignored, constantly overlooked or explained away; at least in favor of the protected belief. Certainly everything I have presented thus far must be scrapped, to continue to believe what has always been believed. That basically is the notion asserted by proponents that ‘new’ <dasha> (from ‘chadash’ 2318 & 2319) of the ‘new covenant’ or ‘Brit-ha-Dasha’ (from Jer.31:31-33) means only ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’. The problem is that <dasha> can mean by definition both ‘new’ and ‘re-New-ed’. To accept <dasha> to only mean ‘re-New-ed’ (i.e. the same) necessarily requires that proponents of this notion ignore the verbiage (“not like”) within the very ‘proof-text’ (Jer.31:31-33) sighted.

2Cor 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. :12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: :13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is ‘a b o l i s h e d’: (Heb.10:1-10)

2Cor.3:11-13 showcases the problem; v:11 speaks of ‘remains’; we intelligently know that ‘remain’ cannot be ‘remain’ unless it was established before. Laterally there is no point to use ‘remain’ as an informational awareness unless something did not ‘remain’. They are both valid; this is not an ‘either – or’ situation as in Greek ‘Step Logic’; it is a ‘both – and’ situation that is common in Hebrew ‘Block Logic’. Further; for ‘remain’ to make sense there had to also have been casualties – things that did not ‘remain’. This point is punctuated at v:13 in the word ‘abolished’ (Heb.10:9). Now the problem is laid bare; if we say ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’, we are ignoring ‘new’ as in “not like” (some Bibles say ‘not according to’ – Jer.31:32). Conversely; if we assert only ‘new’ (as in all together brand new) we are ignoring ‘re-New-ed’ in the verbiage ‘My Torah’ (law – Jer.31:33, Gen.26:5) as in the same i.e. unchanged from the beginning.

For those that will pounce on my use of “same i.e. unchanged”; my usage would be inclusive of all Torah (as in ‘instruction’) inclusive of all pivot points and evidence of pending future “till Shiloh come”/“Messianic” transition i.e. ‘reformation’ (Gen.49:10); “change” (Heb.7:11-13; 9:10; 10:9) that have always been there (2Cor.3:13) in the accounts of Torah. (dealt with at length in chapter #1 – ‘The Rightly Dividing Point’)

John 14:6 “ … I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Heb 9:10 “…and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation <diorthosis>”

We must guard against the cafeteria mind-set of pick and choose; an enee-menee-minee-moe; I like this verse but this one’s gotta go, mentality. It’s cousin is no better; tic tac toe, I accept Yahshua, but Paul’s a lying anti-law so and so (read Jn.16:12/Gal.1:11-12; Heb.5:12-13). Plainly; It is the ignoring, diminishing or out-right denial of <diorthosis> (“Messianic reformation” Heb.9:10) that identically tracks the Torah pronouncement account of Jacob/Israel (Gen.49:10, Ezk.21:27, Num.24:17) that facilitates the acceptance of the notion that there remains a valid covenant (involving both the Gen.15 Abraham, Gen.17 circumcision and Ex.19 Book of the Covenant) for ‘the Jews’ (more correctly – the House of Judah), laterally being valid along side the New Covenant for non-Jews.

This two buses out of town notion flies in the face of Yahshua being the ‘only’ way (Jn.14:6). With some few actually coming from the Christian Church, finding the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith – becoming enamored with all the trappings and literature of either Rabbinic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Karaite Judaism (at some point usually through Messianic Judaism); in some (dare I say most) cases these ‘few’ go on to take the vow of Judaism turning their back on Yahshua and the New Testament in favor of this ‘other way’.

‘Messianic Reformation’ is not solely a New Testament concept; Jacob (Israel) referenced it’s validity at Gen.49:10 (during the pronouncements on the 12 sons) in the words, “till Shiloh come” – ‘Shiloh’ by Hebrew definition is “an epithet (another name) of Messiah” clearly referencing a ‘pivot point’ i.e. a pending change, the apex of many changes (Col.2:14; Eph.2:15-16; Heb.7:11-13; 2Cor.3:11-13, etc.); that have always been evidenced in the Torah recorded by the hand of Moses at the mouth of Yahweh (Acts 15:19-21). Even Orthodox literature contains acknowledged admissions that there will be changes when (wink wink) Messiah does come. Of course the Orthodox do not accept Yahshua as the Messiah; as ever having come the first time changing anything.

Yah’s Esteem

Priesthood

Priesthood

The term ‘Melkizedeq Priesthood’ does not directly appear in the Torah, TaNaK, or the NT (the rest of the Bible). This being so; being as it may, it is nonetheless heavily alluded to.

The term ‘priesthood’ – comes from the Hebrew H3550 <kehu^nna^h>, Remember all the 60’s surfer lingo – ‘The Big Kahuna’ ? Who knew? The term ‘priest’ comes from the Hebrew H3548 <Kohen>. Priesthood is first directly expressed biblically at Ex.40:15Ex.40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

However; Priesthood is indirectly inferred at Ex.19:5-6

Ex.19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: :6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation…

The phrase ‘kingdom of priests’ definitely bespeaks of a specific priest grouping. This priest-group or ‘hood’ can be none other than the ‘Melkizedeq Priesthood’. For this ‘kingdom of priests’ was to all 12 Tribes of Israel not just the Levities. No one had ever heard of a Levite tribe only priesthood at that point.

The Israelites said ‘Oh yeah – we’ll keep the covenant’ (Ex.19:7-8 / 24:7-8) – BUT they did not – they broke the covenant within 40 days (Ex.32). YHWH was going to destroy them all; wipe them all out, including Aaron and his sons – except Moses.

Ex 32:10 Now therefore let me (YHWH v:9) alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them (Israel v:9): and I will make of thee (Moses v:9) a great nation.

But Moses pleaded for the people – YHWH relented (Ex.32:14) – BUT; now they were no longer eligible to be that nation **of ‘Melkizedeq’ Priests – They would now be a nation **with Levitical priests; thrust under the Levitical priesthood; the Levitical priesthood was born.

Num 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all (from every tribe) the firstborn (Ex.13:2) that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; (Num.8:14)

The term ‘the Levitical Priesthood’ does occur 1 time in the entire Bible at Heb.7:11

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,)…

The Levitical priesthood was a closed priesthood reserved for Levites. But we who have accepted Yahshua as Messiah (the Melkizedeq High Priest – Heb.4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10) are being called back into the original Ex.19 Melkizedeq Priesthood.

1Ptr.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royalG934 priesthood,G2406, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

G934
βασίλειος
basileios
bas-il’-i-os
From G935; kingly (in nature): – royal.

G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce’
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): – king.

G2406
ἱεράτευμα
hierateuma
hee-er-at’-yoo-mah
From G2407; the priestly fraternity, that is, a sacerdotal order (figuratively): – priesthood.

G2407
ἱερατεύω
hierateuo¯
hee-er-at-yoo’-o
Prolongation from G2409; to be a priest, that is, perform his functions: – execute the priest’s office.

King in Hebrew is ‘Melek’ – ‘Zedek’ in Hebrew means ‘Righteous’; ergo the Melkizedeq Priesthood – or the King’s Righteous Priest Order  (i.e. royal priesthood 1Ptr.2:9)

Yah’s Esteem

The Breakdown

The Breakdown

Pursuant to ‘Made By Oath’

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before …, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

‘four hundred and thirty years after’ – what?

The ‘covenant’ this verse is speaking of is ‘The Book of the Covenant’ (Ex.19:5-24:8) this came immediately before ‘the law’ that is mentioned at Ex.24:12. Both ‘The Book of the Covenant’ ratified at Ex.24:7-8 and ‘the law’ mention at Ex.24:12 came 430yrs after the ‘Promise’ (guarantee) Covenant given to Abraham at Gen.15.

Paul says at;
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. – That means no adding, and no subtracting.

This is what is so significant concerning ‘The Book of the Covenant’ ratified at Ex.24:7-8 – that necessarily means that ‘the law’ mentioned at Ex.24:12 cannot possible be added as part of the covenant. That this ‘law’ stands outside (Ex.24:12) of the ‘The Book of the Covenant’ ratified at Ex.24:7-8.

‘The Book of the Covenant’ accepted and ratified by the Exodus Israelites (Abraham’s descendants) was the formal ‘answer’ (430yrs. removed) to the Abraham ‘Promise’ of Gen.15.

‘The Book of the Covenant’ was broken/breached 40 days later (Ex.32) – I do not know how to say this any plainer – You cannot break a 430yr removed ‘answer’; without breaking the ‘promise’ itself that was made 430yrs. Prior. The Gen.15 Covenant (to Abraham and his descendants) required an answer; ‘The Book of the Covenant’ was that ‘answer’. That is to say you cannot break the ‘answer’ to a 430yr removed ‘promise’ without breaking the promise itself. With that kind of Covenant you either keep it or you break it – there are no other choices.

Breaking the Gen.15 Covenant had consequences – death position consequences (passing between the animal halves) that Yahshua as the ‘lighted lamp’ (Gen.15:17) had accepted in Abraham’s place

Mat 26:39 And he (Yahshua) went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

It was not possible – there was only the ‘one way’ that all the prophecies could be fulfilled. We must realize that many things intersected at the cross; Yahshua’s one death simultaneously in confluence satisfied several scripturally prophetic issues. Yahshua died the death of the ‘adulterous bride’; He died the death of the ‘rebellious son’; He died the death for the ‘sins of the whole world’ and He died the death for the breaking of the Gen.15 covenant. But most importantly; He died as the spotless lamb of YHWH; His (Yahshua’s) Blood shed (by scourging and crucifixion) did blood ratify the ‘New Covenant’ (Mt.26:24, Mk.14:26, Lk.22:20 – Jer.31:31-33/Heb.8:8-10; 9:12).

This issue is dealt with in ‘Back to the Melchizedek Future’

May Yah grant you Wisdom

Made by Oath

 

Made by Oath

 

The Covenant of ‘Answer’ came 430 years after the Covenant of ‘Promise’ (Gal.3:17). You cannot break a 430 year removed ‘Answer’ without breaking the ‘Promise’ itself. The proof is that Gen.15 carries a condition – a death position – that we can see was played out at Yahshua’s crucifixion (looking like the halved animals at Gen.15). Now I can make the circumcision point. The ‘Answer’ – ‘Book of the Covenant’ required physical circumcision as an ‘entrance sign’. The Israelite descendants of Abraham ‘broke’ the ‘Answer Covenant’ that required physical circumcision as an ‘entrance sign’. Breaking the ‘Answer’ also broke the Gen.15 ‘Promise’. Now there was nothing to enter into. The point of the ‘physical entrance circumcision sign’ is now a mute issue. This is Paul’s very point;

Rom 2:25 … : but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

1Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing – uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments …

Gal 5:6 For in Yahshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith …

Gal 6:15 For in Yahshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Col 3:11 … neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet (still) preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? …

We must also realize the fact that once a covenant (any covenant) in this case the biblical (Promise/Answer) covenant is broken it cannot be just over looked; it has to be renegotiated. This includes the covenant entrance sign of physical circumcision. Physical circumcision now stands as a symbol of broken covenants. True that the re-New-ed ‘answer’ Covenant (Jer.31:31-33) employs many of the same factors and issues of the original Exodus ‘answer’ Covenant. It can even take the same form and use the same mode as the original, but it is ‘New’ as in not the same. This would include the entrance sign; no longer physical circumcision but ‘circumcision of the heart’.

But – But; Paul circumcised Timothy – If physical circumcision is nothing why did Paul circumcise Timothy? The answer is found in that very verse used as objection – Acts 16:3; ‘because of the (local) Jews’. Not to gain salvation or enter the covenant or to justify himself before Yahweh, but to gain credence, audience, favor with the Jews (local or otherwise) that would not understand it any other way (2Cor.3:11-15).

Acts:16:3: Him (Timothy v:1) would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him
**because of the Jews** which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Actually Gen.15 is the ‘Guarantee’ Covenant; guaranteeing ‘The Promise’ already made by oath at Gen.12 – Even though the covenant at Gen.15 is broken we still have ‘The Promise’ made by ‘Oath’ at Gen.12 (Heb.6:13).

A Circumcized Truth

A Circumcized Truth

Jos 5:5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt (Ex.32 till Jos.5:5), them they had not circumcised.

The Israelites ratified the Book of the Covenant 3 months after leaving Egypt (Ex.19:1). They broke that same Covenant 40 days later (Ex.32:1) – what is not popularly understood is that after said ‘break’ the Israelites stopped circumcising their new born males – By the time of Jos.5:5 this is over 40 years!

The thing about a truth is it usually exposes an error, a lie, a series of errors or a series of lies – or the combination of the foregoing.

Jos 5:2 At that time YHWH said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

This is well after the ‘Golden Calf’ breach of Ex.32 – Well after the demotion from the Melchizedek Priesthood (Ex.19:5-6) to the Levitical Priesthood (Ex.40:13-15, Num.3:12).

Jos.5:2 says that this was a 2nd command to circumcise – after a 40 year lapse identified at Jos 5:5. The very 1st command is clearly Gen.17.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Rom 2:25 … : but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

This is Paul’s argument – the Israelites did break the Covenant at Ex.32:1

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH:

This is YHWH’s indictment – the Israelites did break the Covenant at Ex.32:1

Circumcision no longer had the Covenant significance from Gen.17 and the Exodus Israelites knew that point.

Gen.17 – Melchizedek; clearly *before the Ex.32 Covenant break.                              Jos.5:2 – Levitical; clearly *after the Ex.32 Covenant break.

The point most do not consider is that today (and as far back as Jos.5:2 & :5) the Jews and those Messianic that identify with them are not circumcising in obedience to Gen.17 but to Jos.5:2. The 40 year lapse forever separates the 2.

The Book of the Covenant (Ex.19:5-24:8) was the ‘Answer’ to the Abraham ‘Promise’ (Gen.15). The Israelites broke that ‘Answer’; now the ‘Promise’ had no ‘Answer’. You cannot break a 430yr removed ‘Answer’ without breaking the ‘Promise’ itself. Gen.17 (in between Gen.15 and Ex.19) ‘Circumcision’ was also a causality of that process.

DrDave – are you saying the Abraham ‘Promise’ of Gen.15 is broken? Yes! Gen.15 held the ‘death position’ for the breaking of covenant (passing between the pieces) that was (accepted by and) exacted on Yahshua at the stake/cross. Would you accept that kind of execution torture for the breaking of covenant if that covenant had not been broken? That is what the drama of Mt.26:39; 42 is all about. He knew He was to be tortured and look like those halved animals. But all is not lost we still have and YHWH operates from the Gen.12 ‘oath’ (Heb.6:13).

Gen.12 ‘oath’ – Circumcision not required!

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased (?)

This is Paul’s rhetorical question.

There is a lot to consider on ‘Circumcision’. It is discussed at length in my new book ‘Back to the Melchizedek Future.

Yah’s Blessing

Replacement Theology

Mat.15:3 But he (Yahshua) answered and said unto them (scribes and Pharisees v:1), Why do ye also transgress the commandment of Yah by your tradition?

We have to realize who we are talking to, to properly assess the potential viability of the information (or dis-information) being promulgated to accept. In too many cases the Gospel-Torah observant are predisposed to Jewish thought which can be most useful. However alluring, we must use discernment. It must be remembered whether it be Orthodox to Karaite reasoning bottom-line they do not believe in Yahshua. So for them nothing has ‘changed’ (2Cor.3:13-15). Everything is just as it was. There is no reason to see or search for a ‘Rightly Dividing Point’ (2Tm.2:15). The reality of Gen.49:10 has not happened. Judah still retains the scepter of rule, the Levites (although usurped by the Rabbis – an un-scriptural ‘change’ in itself) still dispense and interpret law. This and other prophesies (such as Ps.110) must be assigned to another meaning/conclusion that does not include Yahshua, Yahshua as Melchizedek High Priest (Heb. Chapters 2 through 13), His re-New-ed Melkizedeq Covenant or the viability of a Melkizedeq Priesthood. Which is when you think of it a ‘replacement theology’ – a Jewish ‘replacement theology’ to protect what in second place always has been for 1,500 years (now 3,500) since the ‘golden calf’ breach that rendered the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish nation ineligible to ever again be in the Melkizedeq Priesthood till the death and resurrection of Yahshua – the Melkizedeq High Priest.

It is amazing and most ironic when you think of it; that a Gospel-Torah observant Messianic would do just exactly that (buy into un-discerned Jewish thought) and use that to defend against or marginalize a brother Gospel-Torah observant Messianic who happens to see the Jewish thought fallacies of some key issues in the Torah-TaNaK-Bible record. To not allow for the legitimate change back to the original by asserting what has in secondary/in-lieu-of/ concession has for the interim been (now for some 3500 yrs.); is an inverted replacement theology. Christians have theirs; and Jews have theirs. It is a travesty that there are so many at the ready to defend in favor of what has always been taught and understood, over that which can be known. Even more so, over that which can be biblically proven. Yet at the same time we must have safeguards to ferret out truth from error and outright lies. I will speak for myself; it is for that reason I choose and determine to stay as close as is possible to what the Bible, to what the Torah actually says.

2Cor.3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is **abolished**:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Messiah:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Yah’s Esteem